Google photos and apple have been doing it for years too, they’re like we found this person 50 times in your photo collection, why don’t you name them?
Apple, afaik, used to be doing this on-device rather than in the cloud. Not quite sure about the situation today.
thats if u trust them
I don’t. Corps gonna corp, if they can. But I’ve checked this using all the development, networking, and energy monitoring tools at my disposal and apple’s e2e and on-device guarantee does appear to hold. For now.
Still, those who can should audit periodically, even if they’re only doing it for the settlement.
Hero
Thanks
Security is in my interest, but yw
deleted by creator
Heard. Today you tomorrow me.
Still on device for Samsung, not sure about others https://www.samsung.com/us/account/privacy-policy/#:~:text=Information Stored on Your Device Not Accessible to Samsung
Amazon asked me to use their photos app to get a $20 gift certificate last week. I uploaded one photo, got the bonus money, deleted the app and used it to help buy a new monitor.
Sometimes these things can be turned into a win.
So what you are saying is that you gave Amazon access to your device for 20$? Doesn’t sound like a good deal to me.
and what would “access to your device” be (assuming this is android)?
Quick guess from me would be permission to use the camera(s) and if they have some kind of file picker or gallery, permission to access all media files from your phone (and older versions of Android did not have this "media"distinction, so they would give access to all user files (excluding sandboxed paths)
You have to manually approve of giving each permission on Android, and camera and files/images are separate permissions (so giving access to the camera doesn’t require giving access to your files). And you can make it so they only have access to it while you use the app. If you take a random picture and then uninstall, they get nothing except that random picture.
Indeed, and would you like to take a guess what % of Android user just accepts it as it is?
Presumably not anyone on Lemmy
apps are sandboxed. if all they did was upload one pic, what access did amazon really get? I’d do that for $20.
Lmao, so fucking true
It’s like tricking a kid into eating their vegetables
Except vegetables are good for you.
That’s just what Big Vegetable wants you to think
Big Vegetable will be the name of my next Stardew Valley farm.
That sounds like something the Anti-Vegetable Coalition terrorists would say
The Anti-Vegetable Coalition actually kinda exists though.
What’s that?
You know, the trifecta of big food conglomerates (especially meat/dairy/egg-focused companies), livestock/feedstock farmers, and “conservative” politicians. None of them want you eating a healthy amount of vegetables. One might reasonably add pharmaceutical companies as well, because they profit off preventable diseases. So, I guess maybe it’s four horsemen rather than a trifecta.
Keeping in mind that the “training data” is also the “recognition database”
OP called out training data specifically, like that was the real problem.
I think OP said training data, but meant recognition database. In a way, it’s both, but they’re talking about the same thing you are
Why did I read it as “Y’all so stupid”?
Tencent isn’t the overlord of image generation lmao. This is using people’s justified fears of China and surveillance to make a false comparison to image generation. All you’re doing is giving more power to companies and states that will abuse it while limiting its use in open source contexts.
How about we just not use people’s personal identities for image generation at all?
How about we just not let any drawings or paintings be made of others at all? I’m all for disallowing things like AI edited porn without consent but you can’t arbitrarily apply one set of rules to image generation by computer and another to one done by hand when their outputs are fundamentally the same.
One is theft and an infringement of privacy for nefarious ends and the other is a painting. There’s a world of difference between agreeing to let someone paint you and a corporation using your data to train AI. Spinning this basic reality into sinophobia is mind boggling. There are people in this thread shitting on Google for the same thing. Would you call it amerophobic to criticize Google for the same shit? Of course you wouldn’t
It’s not theft. Fuck copyrights.
Sure, for corporations and the wealthy. But it straight up yanks information from small authors, artists, etc. I couldn’t give less of a shit if Disney is impacted from AI, but there is real potential for harm to average people. Submitting your shit to AI should be opt-in, scraping the web for content that company didn’t create with no consent from the content creators for the means of profiting off their labor is wrong. Copyright is fucked, yes. It protects the wealthy more than it protects the non-wealthy, yes. These companies practices are still fucked too. Two things can be bad and there is plenty of room for nuance in this area
I never said it was sinophobic I said that they’re utilizing peoples preexisting dispositions to consolidate power in the AI space. Which is objectively true, the large companies are currently doing everything they can to demonize open source models.
you can’t arbitrarily apply one set of rules to image generation by computer and another to one done by hand when their outputs are fundamentally the same.
Why not? The arbitrating factor is the people involved in making the image. The inputs.
What is your definition of ‘people involved in making the image’. People are involved whether or not you use AI. It’s the same argument traditional artists threw when digital art first started to come onto the scene. “your art is worthless and takes away from my real art because it was made with a computer”. There is a huge difference between someone posting raw gens and those that spend hours on pre and post processing to get a style consistent with the image in their head. That’s exactly what digital artists do. Your tools should get you 80% of the way to your intended product, the rest comes from you. Is that inherently without value just because a computer had a part in the process? Then you’d have to apply the same rules to all digital art made within the last 20 years. Adobe has been utilizing, admittedly worse versions, of AI in things like Photoshop for years. People just didn’t realize it until they got good enough to stand out.
🤱shhhhhhhhhhh drink your milk
